On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 02:51:59PM -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> So anyway, *I* would object to applying that; it was meant to
> illustrate what the comment, if any, should cover; not to be an
> actual code change. I don't think the change that was pushed helps
> that comment carry its own weight, either. If we can't do better
> than that, we should just drop it.
>
> I guess I won't try to illustrate a point *that* particular way
> again....
OK, so does anyone object to removing this comment line?
slot_attisnull()
...
/*
--> * assume NULL if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc
*/
if (attnum > tupleDesc->natts)
return true;
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
